How can rich countries best help poor ones? Matt Ridley identifies five priorities

In September next year, the United Nations plans to choose a list of development goals for the world to meet by the year 2030. What aspirations should it set for this global campaign to improve the lot of the poor, and how should it choose them?

In answering that question, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his advisers are confronted with a task that they often avoid: setting priorities. It is no good saying that we would like peace and prosperity to reach every corner of the world. And it is no good listing hundreds of targets. Money for foreign aid, though munificent, is limited. What are the things that matter most, and what would be nice to achieve but matter less?

The origin of this quest for global priorities goes back to 2000, when Mr. Ban's predecessor,
Kofi Annan,
picked a set of "Millennium Development Goals," eight challenges to be met by 2015, which were adopted by world leaders. Although some of these goals were woolly, the very brevity of the list and the deadline itself meant that they really did catch the world's imagination and force the aid industry to be more selective.

Most of the original Millennium Development Goals will have been met or nearly so by 2015. Since 2000, for example, the number of people living in extreme poverty and hunger around the world will have been cut in half—an astonishing achievement. Other goals included universal primary education, gender equality, reductions in child mortality, improvements in maternal health, progress against HIV and malaria, environmental sustainability and (most vaguely) a "global partnership for development."

The lesson, surely, from this first round of setting development goals is the need to be even more ruthlessly selective next time. A list of eight goals is too long for most outsiders to remember. When I asked several of my colleagues in the British Parliament, they remembered only three to five. Several development experts I spoke to say that the new list should have just five discrete, quantitative, achievable goals.

Only Mr. Ban can make that happen, says
Charles Kenny,
a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C., who observes that you should "never ask a committee to write poetry." Mr. Kenny told me: "There is one person who can bring the poetry. The U.N. secretary-general has to edit down with an ax, not a scalpel. Without strong intervention from Ban Ki-moon, there is extremely limited prospect for simplification."

ENLARGE

Goal: Boost preprimary education, which costs little and has lifelong benefits by getting children started on learning.
European Pressphoto Agency

So far, however, the process of deciding on the 2030 goals is short on poetry. There is not just one committee on the job but several—the most prominent of which is called the Open Working Group, or OWG, which has already been meeting off and on for more than two years. The OWG "stream"—and keep in mind that other U.N. groups are also producing streams of their own—has so far managed to whittle its list of possible targets down to 169. It is an absurdly long list, and each time the results of its deliberations are published, every pressure group checks to make sure its favorite goal is still in there and makes a fuss if it is not.

What Mr. Ban needs is an objective way of paring down the list. In doing so, I would recommend to him an unlikely ally:
Bjorn Lomborg,
a T-shirt-wearing, vegetarian, Danish political scientist who shot to fame in 2001 with a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist," which infuriated those who support environmental protection at all costs, including the welfare of the poor.

Mr. Lomborg is the founder of an international think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He has invented a useful method for dispassionately but expertly deciding how to spend limited funds on different priorities. Every four years since 2004, he has assembled a group of leading economists to assess the best way to spend money on global development. On the most recent occasion, in 2012, the group—which included four Nobel laureates—debated 40 proposals for how best to spend aid money.

The goal was simple: to create a cost-benefit analysis for each policy and to rank them by their likely effectiveness. For every dollar spent, how much good would be done in the world?

The Copenhagen Consensus Center process has won world-wide respect for its scrupulously fair methods and startling conclusions. Its 2012 report, published in book form as "How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place," came to the conclusion that the top five priorities should be nutritional supplements to combat malnutrition, expanded immunization for children, and redoubled efforts against malaria, intestinal worms and tuberculosis.

Their point wasn't that these are the world's biggest problems, but that these are the problems for which each dollar spent on aid generates the most benefit. Enabling a sick child to regain her health and contribute to the world economy is in the child's interest—and the world's.

The numbers produced by this exercise are eye-catching. Every dollar spent to alleviate malnutrition can do $59 of good; on malaria, $35; on HIV, $11. As for fashionable goals such as programs intended to limit global warming to less than two degrees Celsius in the foreseeable future: just 2 cents of benefit for each dollar spent.

Nor is this just about the cold tabulation of dollars and cents. The calculus used by the Copenhagen Consensus also includes such benefits as avoided deaths and sickness and potential environmental benefits, including forestalling climate change.

The Copenhagen experts use strips of paper on which are written different priorities along with cost-benefit ratios, and they are invited to move them up and down as they debate the academic evidence. In setting priorities, they also take into account the feasibility of scaling up interventions and the risk of corruption.

Of course, when the U.N. is contemplating its choices for the next set of global development goals, cost-benefit isn't the only criterion. In South Africa, for instance, HIV is a much bigger problem than malaria, so different regions will have different concerns. But ranking the interventions does concentrate the mind.

Surprising as it may seem, the global-aid industry has rarely done such cost-benefit analysis. People in this line of work generally recoil from such rankings as a heartless exercise implying discrimination against still-worthy global goals. The aid industry often seems implicitly to take the view that funds are unlimited and that spending on one priority doesn't crowd out spending on another. But this is patently not the case: The problems are far bigger than the available budget and will remain so even if the world's rich countries ever meet their 35-year-old goal of spending 0.7% of their GNP on development aid.

In December last year, Mr. Lomborg came to New York to address the U.N. Open Working Group's ambassadors directly. He handed them his strips of paper and asked them to put them down in preferred order. It was an eye-opening exercise in a place where people are accustomed to saying, in diplomatic earnest, "Everything is important."

Then, over eight days in June, Mr. Lomborg got a group of 60 leading economists to work through all the OWG's putative development targets for 2030 (there were more than 200 of them at the time), making a quick assessment of which were good value for money. The result, now available online, is a document that assigns a color code to each target: green (phenomenal value for money), pale green (good), yellow (fair), gray (not enough known) and red (poor).

At the conclusion of this process, the group had 27 "phenomenal" green values and 23 "poor" red values, with all the rest in between.

Champions of aid aren't used to having their homework marked in this stark fashion, and some didn't like it at first. As Ambassador
Elizabeth M. Cousens,
the U.S. representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council, told Mr. Lomborg, "I really don't like you putting one of my favorite targets in red." But she added, "I'm glad you're saying it, because we all need to hear economic evidence that challenges us."

Having gone through this useful document myself, I found myself in full sympathy with those forced to choose among them. But at least this sort of analysis provides some rigor and direction.

What would my own list of five 2030 goals look like, based on the work of the Copenhagen Consensus group?

1. Reduce malnutrition. When children get better food, they develop their brains, stay in school longer and end up becoming far more productive members of society. Every dollar spent to alleviate malnutrition brings $59 of benefits.

2. Tackle malaria and tuberculosis. These two diseases debilitate huge populations in poor countries, but they are largely preventable and curable. In the most harshly affected countries, two people often do one person's work because one of them is sick. Benefit to cost ratio: 35 to 1.

3. Boost preprimary education, which costs little and has lifelong benefits by getting children started on learning. 30 to 1.

4. Provide universal access to sexual and reproductive health, which would save the lives of mothers and infants while enabling women to be more economically productive. It would also lower birthrates (when fewer children die, people have fewer children). Benefits could be as high as 150.

5. Expand free trade. This isn't considered sexy in the development industry, and it may seem remote from humanitarian issues, but free trade often delivers phenomenal improvements to the welfare of the poor in surprisingly quick time, as the example of China has demonstrated in recent years. One of the discoveries of the Copenhagen Consensus process is that incremental goals such as expanding free trade are often better than supposedly "transformational" goals. A successful Doha Round of the World Trade Organization could deliver annual benefits of $3 trillion for the developing world by 2020, rising to $100 trillion by the end of the century.

The development goals of least value, according to the Copenhagen process, include the self-contradictory call for higher agricultural productivity with less environmental impact. Other bad investments are less obvious but would actually hurt the poor. For example, equal access to affordable tertiary education may sound good in principle, but in many developing countries, it amounts to a policy of having the mass of poor people pay for the college education of the rich. Other goals—such as "sustainable tourism"—are simply too narrow and ill-defined to merit consideration on a list of urgent priorities.

One much-favored goal in the list generated by the U.N.'s Open Working Group comes out especially badly: the idea of providing gender-disaggregated data to help women. Not only do we have much of the data (and it is very costly to gather more), but how, say the Copenhagen experts, would you define the gender-disaggregated value of a cow owned by a family of five?

Those who fear that the rankings might reflect Mr. Lomborg's own prejudices will be relieved. He convened the economists, to be sure, but they are the ones who did the color coding.

Mr. Lomborg accepts the basic conclusions of today's climate science, but he is known to be skeptical about many current policies to avert climate change. Still, the experts he brought together conclude that phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies is a "phenomenal" value. They also find excellent value in programs meant to develop resilience and adaptive capacity in response to climate-induced hazards.

But they judge it poor value, for the world's poor, to attempt either to double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix or to hold the increase in global average temperature below a certain level in accordance with international agreements. This is because the experts think that allowing emissions to rise initially while investing in rapid advances in energy technology is a much better idea than trying to limit emissions now with today's expensive renewables.

Indeed, one of the world's most pressing health problems, and the one most conspicuously missing from Mr. Annan's original development goals in 2000, is the annual death toll of more than four million people due to indoor air pollution. This enormous, abiding problem is attributable to the fact that so many of the world's poor lack access to affordable (that is, fossil-fuel-generated) electricity and therefore cook over burning wood or dung.

This most recent exercise by the Copenhagen Consensus was, Mr. Lomborg admits, "quick and dirty," intended to catch the attention of the Open Working Group before it wraps up its work for the summer. But in the coming months, Mr. Lomborg's group will publish thousands of peer-reviewed pages, describing costs and benefits for all the most important U.N. targets. With the help of three Nobel Laureates, the group will produce a definitive report with ranked priorities and deliver it to the U.N.

Figuring out the best way to help the world's poor isn't like solving a math problem. There are not right and wrong answers. But there are better and worse answers, and the only way to assign those priorities is to set aside our sentimental commitments and do the hard work of assessing costs and benefits.

Mr. Ridley is the author of "The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves" and a member of the British House of Lords.

Against my better judgment to stop reading at the first mention of the U.N. on the first line, I've read through. Nowhere, not once, did I see any mention of corrupt dictatorships and other such autocratic governments intercepting most of the money and most of the goods to profit on the black market.

Nigeria, to take one example, is NOT a poor country. In fact, Africa, is NOT a poor continent. It has: Oil, gold, diamonds, copper, beauxite, uranium, rich farmlands, cattle and cattle-hides, timbers, the potential for an explosive tourist industry -- why do they live like animals? There is not a single reason why a single African should be hungry, sick, uneducated, or poor. Except for the governments that run Africa. The kids on 42nd St. and 1st Avenue in New York, in their 4-figure suits and with their 6-figure educations have not figured that out yet.

As I heard from an African scholar: Want to help Africa? Quit trying to help Africa. That will help them tremendously.

Help the poor by enacting constitutional reform. And making a few other easy changes.

Humans can be extremely hard-working when they can predict the future. They will engage in undying effort and produce enough excess wealth within each particular societal group to meet the needs of all.

But they will only engage in excess effort above what is needed for short-term survival when they can predict the future.

And the only way to assure humans about the future is the constitutional protection of property and contract rights enforced by a non-corrupt judiciary available to all.

If you want to help the poor in a sustainable way that won't require constant new efforts, don't build medical facilities or schools or give them food aid or teach them how to farm.

Give them a non-corrupt judiciary and the Uniform Commercial Code. Give them a banking system backed by deposit insurance issued by the World Bank.

And then simply sit back and wait. You have to be patient. But in twenty to forty years, sustainable wealth creation WILL occur.

Enough wealth to build their own schools and medical clinics. And to feed those who temporarily can't provide for themselves.

The list doesn't emphasize education enough. What happens when disease and birth rates are under control? The cycle of poverty is still there without being able to get a good paying job. The list touched on it a little bit by equal opportunity to education for women.

The UN has had over 60 years of failure deciding what problems to fix in Africa. Maybe it might work better if the countries involved identified their own problems, devised there own plans to solve them and applied for resources from the UN. At least then the country would be accountable since the UN never is accountable for anything.

The best thing that can happen is to promote the development of institutions that will favor free market development. The odds of the UN/Left axis assisting on this are zero. Botswana has managed to do it by itself for very specific cultural and historical reasons, and they have done exceptionally well because of it.

This is an excellent approach to helping poor nations. The one issue that is not covered is the cost of the political corruption involved in delivering the services.

Expanding Free Trade should be expanded into helping the natives develop products to trade without burdening these products with environmental restrictions. The ultimate goal of nurtition, health, and education must be to enable the natives to be produtive citizens, contributing more to the economy than they get in government benefits. (That is a lesson that is not on the curriculum in Obama's America).

Some of the goals are at odds with the UN/left agenda. For example, as Mr. Lomborg well knows, Global Warming ends up on the bottom of the priority list when you consider cost-benefit, even when it is assumed that the IPCC prognosis is right, which it isn't. Also, malaria control is hampered by the overconstrained limitations on the use of DDT, whose ban was responsible for tens of millions of deaths. Progress against the monstrous toll from burning dung and wood indoors is hampered by the left's fetish against hydrocarbon fuels.

The best thing that can happen for the people of Sub Saharan Africa is for the UN to stay out of it.

Free movement of people would solve this quickly, since people would just pack up and move to greener pastures. Failing that, free movement of goods is a first step.

As a first step to free movement of people, a global standard for "basic literacy" or "highly educated" could be set up. It would benefit everyone if people certified to a high enough standard could freely move around the globe to seek employment.

Rich countries cannot help anyone, they're floundering in their own stupidity. The only thing that can help is people to people contact. Governments and NGOs waste more money getting to the place to help than actually helping.

Helping is voluntary, and actually gives more back to the helper than the receiver ever gets. That's why churches and real charities deliver the most help, the best help and the least corrupt help.

In the case of the US, the only real winners are the cronies. Six figure salaries for friends of the prevailing government.

Pity it is to be subjected to more than 2,500 words that contain absolutely no insight, and indeed, call for the patient to ingest more of the same poison that has caused his malady. British economist Peter Bauer said in 1979, “Aid is a phenomenon whereby poor people in rich countries are taxed to support the lifestyles of rich people in poor countries.” “Development aid is not necessary to rescue poor
societies from a vicious circle of poverty. Indeed, it is far more likely to
keep them in that state.” As numerous countries have amply demonstrated, elimination of corruption and adoption of market-based competitive economies is the only antidote for solving childhood poverty.

Clean water, I suppose, could perhaps come under "nutritional support" but without clean water disease continues to flourish and agriculture is doubtful. Modern water and sewage systems have probably done more to advance living conditions than many social/political policies.

While malnutrition tops different lists in this article, what is not mentioned is that the Copenhagen Consensus has determined that over 1,000 children a day are dying of malnutrition through the lack of vitamin A. The lack of vitamin A causes blindness and children then die because they cannot fend for themselves. The Copenhagen Consensus has also stated that these deaths could be greatly reduced with Golden Rice, which is genetically modified to increase Vitamin A. However Golden Rice is not allowed in many parts of the world because of successful efforts by those opposed to genetically modified foods. I spoke with one of the leading spokesmen for the opposition of genetically modified food, about this and his response was that if those kids were allowed to eat Golden Rice they could die from eating it. To my knowledge not a single death has yet been attributed to eating genetically modified food.

I read a book called The Fever: How Malaria Has Ruled Humankind for 500,000 Years in which the author, Sonia Shah, reported that many people in Africa don't appreciate foreigners attempting to alleviate malaria or supply them with Western health treatments. She said often the malaria nets we send are used for fishing. She seemed credible and it made me think.

If by "rich" they mean abundant natural resources, then Africa is richer than America. If by "rich" they mean a summation of credits and debits, then Africa is still richer than America. The United States is $17.5 TRILLION in debt. So when is the United Nations going to give us some money? The only thing the America has that Africa doesn't is freedom.

These are all laudable goals reached only by shoveling money, lots of money, into developing countries in the hope that some of this money will actually be used for the intended purpose. The majority of the money will, as it is now, be used to foster cronyism and corruption of the ruling class and thus prevent the changes better education etc. are supposed to bring.

At the bottom of poverty in so many countries is the lack of enforceable laws and basic rights, including the right of ownership, a fair trial and everyone being equal. Defining goals in these areas would go a much longer way than once again pouring out billions into dark channels with no oversight and no accountability.

There is a article in the Commodity section about American farmers losing money for flush overproduction of corn resulting in low prices. Just 2 years after drought induced predictions of pestilence and famine. Remember that?

I don't trust the UN to place itself at the forefront of being the world's problem solvers. This is a money hungry and anti-capitalism organization that spends taxpayer's money on worthless projects. For example, in UN run schools in the Gaza, courtesy of US taxpayer's dollars, we're finding out with the current Israeli HAMAS conflict these UN schools have aligned themselves with HAMAS by storing their weapons in the schools. These same schools serve as emergency shelters and the UN is placing Gaza's residents in harm's way knowing the Israeli's will attack these schools. The UN has a long history of being anti-Israeli. I think the UN should get out of the way and just leave town. There are many private organizations that can do a better job in helping the world's poor nations.

@SAM HALL Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Trenton, Camden all have clean water, proper sewage systems, cheap energy, cheap public transportation, free education, free medical and dental care, free or heavily subsidized food supplies, etc. And the entire African population of these cities still lives in a violent, out of control, dysfunctional environment of their own creation.

'Obamacare' mainly extends protections to patients, such as no longer being denied health care insurance because they have preexisting conditions. Private sector clinics and hospitals provide the overwhelming majority of care under 'Obamacare.' The health care insurance exchanges' private plans require that consumers pay a share of their costs. In short, you are fibbing.

@Howard Tyson@SAM HALL True, but that is because they have much more than the basics, they have an enabler that proves welfare. The black community wasn't like that before the so-called "War on Poverty"

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.